So which Night film is canon to George's series, original or remake?

[JDP]

I know I'm coming 4 weeks late into this but wow, interesting viewpoints altogether. I would like to bring up a couple of things that I don't think anyone in this thread has brought up (forgive me if i am wrong, I haven't gone through every single page of it). Im going to be making some comparisons to the Walking Dead because, well, both situations are almost identical (the only difference is that Romero's zombies have a bit more intellect or rather they are capable of achieving intellect)... 1. An issue i read being brought up here is why are the survivors of Dawn and Day not going to these big outposts (Fiddlers green aka downtown Pittsburgh, Cleveland, etc) when they have supposedly been operating since the start? Logically, I don't think a place like Fiddlers Green was operational from the start. I think it probably began as a rescue station or a series of rescue stations in downtown Pittsburgh. They defended these buildings (rescue stations) well enough to hold their own ground for a while and, overtime, kaufman banded everyone together to take back more of the city, section by section. Kind of like in Dawn, the survivors began living in the malls storage room. Then over a couple days they took more of the mall back from the dead. Soon they had the entire place to themselves. It seems logical that this is what occured in Fiddlers Green. Instead of holding up in mall storage room, kaufmans people held up in a tv station, high school, and maybe a hotel until an idea occured... Raise the bridges, close off the throat, and kill whatever is left inside. Just like what happened in Dawn but on a larger scale and took much longer, even requiring more manpower. Heck they probably screwed up a few times, losing some people in the.process. can you.imagine trying to enact such large scale risky plan like that? Look at Woodbury from the Walking Dead. The governor said they started out trapped in an apartment building in woodbury. Over time, they closed off woodbury and killed the stragglers inside. Eventually governor had his very own little Fiddlers green so to speak. So why didn't the survivors of Dawn and Day know about a place like Fiddlers Green? Probably because it wasnt fiddlers green just yet. It was a few rescue station.groups huddled together, struggling to survive at first and eventuallly gain control of the situation by taking the city back. So, assuming Day begins just when Dawn ends or assuming its a few months after, why doesn't the Florida crew know of the Pittsburgh and Cleveland outposts? Maybe they werent outposts yet, maybe they were still im the midst of getting their s*** together. It probably took more time, after securing pittsburgh, for kaufman to discover and establish communication with Cleveland. Does this make any sense? No, because the media had already reported the existence of the outposts and the looting they were doing. We then see that "sometime later" they are still doing the same we heard the media report at the start of the movie. These outposts were already established and organized early on during the zombie crisis. They might not have been as populous as we see later on (we can assume that more and more survivors from other parts of the cities and adjacent towns gradually found their way to the outposts), but they existed. Since even the media reported the existence of the outposts, it makes very little sense that no one in the other two movies, not even the government, appears to know anything about such places. Would Dr. Rausch seriously propose to bomb the hell out of all major cities if he knew there still were so many survivors left in them? Would a megalomaniac like Rhodes have to swallow his pride in front of his men and not be able to answer the simple "where will you go?" question that is sarcastically presented to him by Dr. Logan if such large populous places still existed? Heck no! On both counts. It is obvious that the people in those two movies know nothing about such places. Yet, they should, if we accept Land as "canon". Evidently Romero did not consider such obvious problems carefully before making Land. 2. Someone else here mentioned Savini's Land interview saying how his character Blades, now returning as a zombie, spent 1.5 years (am i right or off a bit?) Chasing his own shadow around mall fountain or some thing like that before arriving at Fiddlers green in Land. Now like it or not, that is zombified Blades you see in Land of the Dead, nevermind that its a cameo appearance. We have a Dawn character appearing as a zombie in Land. Savini gave us a time reference as well. Dawn's setting is about 20-30 min outside of Land's setting. Which would explain why he shows up in Land, probably because he and his buddies lived there (prior to outbreak of course, because remember Rome, i mean fiddlers green was not built in a day, week, or month). Now are we to interpret his time reference as the amount of time passed between Dawn and Land (assuming Day is in the middle)? His time mark almost meets up with the 3 year references in Land. Because Blades dies about 6-7 months after the outbreak starts (going by Fran's pregnancy). That would make it about two years since the zombie outbreak, not three: 1.5 years of zombified Blades roaming around + 6-7 months since the zombie outbreak at the end of Dawn = 2 or 2.1 years by the time he reaches the outpost. If we go by that, then, the 3 years references in Land are clearly about things that happened before the zombie crisis. 3. About the 3 year references in Land.... The garage guy says the last car drove out of Pittsburgh 3 years ago. Cholo says hes been taking out kaufmans garbage for 3 years... Why do both things occur at the 3 year mark? Is it a coincidence that the last car drove out of town at the same time that Cholo started working for kaufman or did something occur 3 years ago to make both of those events happen at the same time? Thoughts? Yes, as written, it could easily be a coincidence. There is nothing in the dialogue that is compelling us to have to assume it is in reference to the zombies. Look at how many people live in that outpost. How many of them do you figure had something or other happen to them 3 years ago that does not necessarily have to all be related? Methinks that a whole bunch of them! People had lives before the zombies showed up, it's not like it all began with them.

[nycbsn]

No, because the media had already reported the existence of the outposts and the looting they were doing. We then see that "sometime later" they are still doing the same we heard the media report at the start of the movie. These outposts were already established and organized early on during the zombie crisis. They might not have been as populous as we see later on (we can assume that more and more survivors from other parts of the cities and adjacent towns gradually found their way to the outposts), but they existed. Since even the media reported the existence of the outposts, it makes very little sense that no one in the other two movies, not even the government, appears to know anything about such places. Would Dr. Rausch seriously propose to bomb the hell out of all major cities if he knew there still were so many survivors left in them? Would a megalomaniac like Rhodes have to swallow his pride in front of his men and not be able to answer the simple "where will you go?" question that is sarcastically presented to him by Dr. Logan if such large populous places still existed? Heck no! On both counts. It is obvious that the people in those two movies know nothing about such places. Yet, they should, if we accept Land as "canon". Evidently Romero did not consider such obvious problems carefully before making Land. That would make it about two years since the zombie outbreak, not three: 1.5 years of zombified Blades roaming around + 6-7 months since the zombie outbreak at the end of Dawn = 2 or 2.1 years by the time he reaches the outpost. If we go by that, then, the 3 years references in Land are clearly about things that happened before the zombie crisis. Yes, as written, it could easily be a coincidence. There is nothing in the dialogue that is compelling us to have to assume it is in reference to the zombies. Look at how many people live in that outpost. How many of them do you figure had something or other happen to them 3 years ago that does not necessarily have to all be related? Methinks that a whole bunch of them! People had lives before the zombies showed up, it's not like it all began with them. Ahh yes, you are referring to the opening credits of Land regarding the outposts starting early on, right? Thanks I forgot about that. Sorry, its been about a year or so since I watched Land (not my favorite one). In that case, damn... I guess Romero screwed up in terms of series continuity in that respect. A simple rewrite with some dialogue describing the scenario i suggested and leaving out the part you mentioned from the opening credits would have fixed that. But oh well. After a 20 year wait, Land could have been so much more than it was. It would have been a great way to close out the series while giving us some subtle callbacks to to the previous films (part of why I love that Blades returned in this one as a zombie). I would have preferred if the original Day script ending was used instead of the fireworks and "theyre just looking for a place to go". These movies have so much in common with the Alien series. A break out first film, an even bigger and successful sequel, a downer 3rd film that earned much respect over time, and 4th one that doesn't quite live up to its 3 siblings. But instead of the newborn alien, we get big daddy.

[JDP]

Ahh yes, you are referring to the opening credits of Land regarding the outposts starting early on, right? Thanks I forgot about that. Sorry, its been about a year or so since I watched Land (not my favorite one). In that case, damn... I guess Romero screwed up in terms of series continuity in that respect. A simple rewrite with some dialogue describing the scenario i suggested and leaving out the part you mentioned from the opening credits would have fixed that. But oh well. After a 20 year wait, Land could have been so much more than it was. It would have been a great way to close out the series while giving us some subtle callbacks to to the previous films (part of why I love that Blades returned in this one as a zombie). I would have preferred if the original Day script ending was used instead of the fireworks and "theyre just looking for a place to go". These movies have so much in common with the Alien series. A break out first film, an even bigger and successful sequel, a downer 3rd film that earned much respect over time, and 4th one that doesn't quite live up to its 3 siblings. But instead of the newborn alien, we get big daddy. Indeed. It is a bit puzzling that Romero did not put more careful thought on some details of Land that are in conflict with the previous two movies. Doing things as you suggested in the example above, would indeed have solved many of these issues and given us a film that would more easily fit into the series without causing important problems. But as I pointed out in some other posts in this thread, unfortunately Romero's memory was getting worse with the years as he grew older. You can tell he was already forgetting some important details that he had established in the previous movies by the time Land was being made, like the issue with the zombie bites and how they affect people.

[EvilNed]

Why do both things occur at the 3 year mark? Is it a coincidence that the last car drove out of town at the same time that Cholo started working for kaufman or did something occur 3 years ago to make both of those events happen at the same time? Thoughts? Obviously there's a connection, everyone agrees on that. So no, there's no coincidence. There are some who refuse to see the connection but I couldn't tell you precisely why because I've yet to hear an arguement to support that side of things.

[JDP]

The above fellow keeps on mysteriously "forgetting" all the more than sufficient explanations he has already been given as to why the way Romero wrote the dialogue in Land no one is really compelled to have to conclude that the 3 years references have something to do with the zombies. Again, one only has to read other movie scripts where two or more references to the same amount of time can easily in fact be a coincidence, and not necessarily something that is connected to each other, as he seems to think. In order for the audience to know for sure which is which, it all depends on how carefully written the dialogue is. Perfect example cited several times for his education: the original script of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Here we have two separate references to "two years". Was it all a coincidence or was it all connected? Had Mr. Kasdan pulled a Land of the Dead on us there and left the two "two years" references just like that, with no further explanations of any kind, we would not know either. We could easily interpret it either way, since there would be no further information to preclude either interpretation. But fortunately he did not. Unlike Romero in Land, he actually bothered to SUFFICIENTLY ELABORATE and make it perfectly clear to the reader that they are nothing but a coincidence: Professor Ravenwood died because of an accident, the Nazis had nothing to do with his death, despite the coincidental "two years" references. Had he not bothered to further elaborate this in several parts of the dialogue to make the point very clear, the reader would be perfectly excused to formulate his own arbitrary conclusions. When you write vague dialogue lines, you are giving your audience a free-license for interpretation, and they might not reach the same conclusions that you had in mind when you wrote them. People are not mind-readers. If you don't want your audience making their own interpretations, then write more precise dialogue that forces only one interpretation: the one that you had in mind. BTW, that Romero was perfectly capable to also write more precise time-references is clearly seen in Dawn. The "three weeks" reference there is quite clearly in regard to the zombies, unlike the "three years" references in Land. Whether the vagueness of the Land references is due to Romero's worsening memory and "losing his touch" or because he did so on purpose to leave the audience wondering, is anyone's guess.

[nycbsn]

I just found this video on youtube, it talks about the timeline for the Dead series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF85GwpTZR8 If you scroll to the bottom of the comments, the last guy says that there are production materials from Day of the Dead which state that it takes place 11 months after the initial outbreak. I have searched all over for the "production materials" and all I can find is the Dead Walk newspaper. Does anyone have any idea what this guy is talking about?

[JDP]

I just found this video on youtube, it talks about the timeline for the Dead series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF85GwpTZR8 If you scroll to the bottom of the comments, the last guy says that there are production materials from Day of the Dead which state that it takes place 11 months after the initial outbreak. I have searched all over for the "production materials" and all I can find is the Dead Walk newspaper. Does anyone have any idea what this guy is talking about? Unfortunately, no. The first two movies are very clear regarding the timeline. After that, things become vague/unclear/ambiguous. And the vagueness/unclearness/ambiguity of Day regarding time seems to be wholly intentional, unlike the one in Land, which might have been unintentional.

[BountyHunter]

There are actually people that think Land of the Dead takes place before Day? Bahahahaha!!! Is JDP a Republican? Seems to have the whole "I'm gonna ignore all the obvious facts you present me, cuz I'm always right" attitude down pat.

[EvilNed]

There are actually people that think Land of the Dead takes place before Day? Bahahahaha!!! Let me just save you weeks, months and possibly years of your life by repeating after me: "Agree to disagree."

[BountyHunter]

I've read the thread. I don't see his viewpoint at all, especially since you can count me in the corner of ppl who remember Romero basically saying things that clearly place Land after Day. Plus, you kinda just have to, y'know, actually watch the movies to be able to tell that.

[JDP]

There are actually people that think Land of the Dead takes place before Day? Bahahahaha!!! Is JDP a Republican? Seems to have the whole "I'm gonna ignore all the obvious facts you present me, cuz I'm always right" attitude down pat. I've read the thread. I don't see his viewpoint at all, especially since you can count me in the corner of ppl who remember Romero basically saying things that clearly place Land after Day. Plus, you kinda just have to, y'know, actually watch the movies to be able to tell that. You should actually read the several threads discussing this topic. It is obvious to anyone with at least a modicum of common sense and logic that trying to place Land of the Dead after Day of the Dead you get into a myriad of contradictions and nonsense, most of which simply "vanish" by inverting the order. No matter what Romero did or did not claim or intend, the movie itself doesn't look at all like it's happening after the much more decayed and hopeless world of Day. Like I said countless times, if Romero's chronological intention was really to make Land take place after Day, then he miserably failed to make the point. Ideally, a movie should convey its points without the filmmaker having to explain anything to the audience outside of the movie itself. Nobody has to "explain" that the events we see in Night are the first in the series, and Dawn the second. This is crystal clear from all the implications in the movies themselves. Not so with Land and Day, though. Here we only get a very blurry "they are happening sometime after Dawn". So, we are forced to have to employ a whole bunch of observation and deduction to try to determine what order would make the most sense. And Land-before-Day is the one that makes the most sense and has the least contradictions, using exclusively what we see in the movies themselves.

[BountyHunter]

Insert eye roll here. I have read quite a few threads since I signed up yesterday and all I see is that you seem to argue a lot about multiple topics. Like, you don't agree with anybody about anything. So after this, I won't be engaging. Talking to my living room wall would net better results.

[JDP]

Insert eye roll here. I have read quite a few threads since I signed up yesterday and all I see is that you seem to argue a lot about multiple topics. Like, you don't agree with anybody about anything. So after this, I won't be engaging. Talking to my living room wall would net better results. Work on your reading & comprehension, you seem to need it.

[BountyHunter]

No, actually I don't. I read and comprehend things just fine. You just like to disagree with everything.

[MinionZombie]

Can we have some civility here? If you don't like each other, fine, but please - both of you - stop derailing the thread.